{"id":2474,"date":"2025-10-06T14:20:21","date_gmt":"2025-10-06T18:20:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=2474"},"modified":"2025-10-06T14:20:23","modified_gmt":"2025-10-06T18:20:23","slug":"illinois-federal-court-finds-self-inflicted-injury-insufficient-to-confer-article-iii-standing-in-publicity-class-action-lawsuit","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2025\/10\/06\/illinois-federal-court-finds-self-inflicted-injury-insufficient-to-confer-article-iii-standing-in-publicity-class-action-lawsuit\/","title":{"rendered":"Illinois Federal Court Finds \u201cSelf-Inflicted Injury\u201d Insufficient To Confer Article III Standing In Publicity Class Action Lawsuit"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Justin Donoho, Hayley Ryan, and Tyler Zmick<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Duane Morris Takeaways: <\/strong>On October 2, 2025, in Azuz v. Accucom Corp. d\/b\/a InfoTracer, No. 21-CV-01182, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195474 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 2, 2025), Judge LaShonda A. Hunt of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed <\/a>a class action complaint alleging violations of the Illinois Right of Publicity Act (IRPA). The plaintiff claimed that InfoTracer unlawfully used individuals\u2019 names and likeness to advertise and promote its products without consent. The Court held that the Plaintiff lacked Article III standing because she failed to plausibly allege a concrete injury \u2013 her only alleged harm was \u201cself-inflicted,\u201d as no one other than her own counsel ever searched her name on the site.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The decision illustrates that plaintiffs bringing right of publicity claims against website operators must show that a third party actually accessed their information for a commercial purpose. Mere availability of an individual\u2019s information on a website, without evidence of third-party viewing, does not establish a concrete injury under Article III.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Background<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Plaintiff Marilyn Azuz filed a putative class action complaint against Accucom Corp. d\/b\/a InfoTracer, which operates infotracer.com, a website selling personal background reports. She alleged that Accucom used her name and likeness to advertise and promote its products without written consent, in violation of the IRPA. Id<\/em>. at *2-4. Plaintiff sought damages and injunctive relief barring Accucom from continuing the alleged conduct. Id<\/em>. at *4.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

After three years of litigation and discovery, Accucom moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, raising a factual challenge to Article III standing. Accucom submitted evidence showing that the only search of Plaintiff\u2019s name on InfoTracer occurred in February 2021, when her own counsel accessed the site after she responded to a Facebook solicitation by her counsel about potential claims. Accucom argued that such a \u201cself-inflicted\u201d search could not establish a concrete injury and that Plaintiff\u2019s claim for injunctive relief was moot because she had since moved to Minnesota and her data had been removed from the site.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Plaintiff countered that her identify being \u201cheld out\u201d to be searched constituted a sufficient injury, and that her request for injunctive relief was not moot Accucom could resume the alleged conduct.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court\u2019s Decision<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court sided with Accucom, holding that the Plaintiff failed to establish a concrete injury and therefore lacked standing to pursue her individual claims. Id<\/em>. at *15.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Relying on the U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez<\/em>, 594 U.S. 413 (2021), Judge Hunt explained that an intangible statutory violation, without evidence of concrete harm, is insufficient for Article III standing.  Just as inaccurate information in a credit file causes no concrete injury unless disclosed to a third party, the Court concluded, \u201ca person\u2019s identity is not appropriated under the IRPA unless it is used for a commercial purpose.\u201d Id<\/em>. at *14.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court rejected Plaintiff\u2019s reliance on Lukis v. Whitepages Inc<\/em>., 549 F. Supp. 3d 798 (N.D. Ill. 2021), noting that Lukis<\/em> involved only a facial attack to standing at the pleading stage, not a factual attack supported by evidence, like here. Id<\/em>. at *9-10.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Noting that it had not found any post-TransUnion<\/em> decisions analyzing the IRPA under a factual challenge to standing, Judge Hunt found Fry v. Ancestry.com Operations Inc<\/em>., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50330 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 24, 2023) to be instructive. Id<\/em>. at *11. In Fry<\/em>, the court cautioned that a plaintiff asserting a right of publicity claim must ultimately produce evidence showing that his likeness was viewed by someone other than his attorney or their agents. That same \u201cforewarning,\u201d Judge Hunt concluded, applied to Plaintiff, who presented no such evidence. Id. <\/em>at *12-13.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court also dismissed Plaintiff\u2019s request for injunctive relief, holding that any potential future harm was speculative and not sufficiently imminent. Because Plaintiff had relocated to Minnesota, the IRPA\u2019s extraterritorial application could not extend to her circumstances. Id<\/em>. at *16.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finally, the Court declined to allow the substitution of new named plaintiffs so that the case could continue, reasoning that because the original plaintiff lacked standing from the outset, the Court never had jurisdiction to allow substitution. Id<\/em>. at *17.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Implications For Companies<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Azuz <\/em>underscores the importance of scrutinizing Article III standing in every stage of litigation, particularly in statutory publicity and privacy cases. Where plaintiffs cannot show that a third party viewed or interacted with their data, courts are likely to find no concrete injury \u2014 and therefore no federal jurisdiction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Website operators facing IRPA or similar publicity-based class actions should consider asserting factual standing challenges supported by evidence demonstrating the absence of third-party access. Such jurisdictional defenses can be decisive and may be raised at any time in the litigation.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Justin Donoho, Hayley Ryan, and Tyler Zmick Duane Morris Takeaways: On October 2, 2025, in Azuz v. Accucom Corp. d\/b\/a InfoTracer, No. 21-CV-01182, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195474 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 2, 2025), Judge LaShonda A. Hunt of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed a … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Illinois Federal Court Finds \u201cSelf-Inflicted Injury\u201d Insufficient To Confer Article III Standing In Publicity Class Action Lawsuit”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":575,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[59],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[7,122,145,12],"class_list":["post-2474","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-privacy-class-actions"],"authors":[{"term_id":7,"user_id":575,"is_guest":0,"slug":"gmaatman","display_name":"Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2022\/09\/maatmangerald-100x100.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""},{"term_id":122,"user_id":686,"is_guest":0,"slug":"jrdonoho","display_name":"Justin Donoho","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2025\/02\/donohojustin-1-100x100.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""},{"term_id":145,"user_id":740,"is_guest":0,"slug":"hhryan","display_name":"Hayley Ryan","avatar_url":{"url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2025\/09\/ryanhayley.jpg","url2x":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2025\/09\/ryanhayley.jpg"},"0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""},{"term_id":12,"user_id":578,"is_guest":0,"slug":"tzzmick","display_name":"Tyler Z. Zmick","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2022\/09\/zmicktyler-100x100.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2474","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/575"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2474"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2474\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2474"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2474"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2474"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=2474"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}